The Creation, Dinosaurs, and Adam and Eve

[Dorothea]

antediluvian means before the Flood, and i think he's referring to how ppl went from living like 800 years to more normal lifespans as we think of them.

Ah ok. Thank you. Both this and the latest post from Chief Sinner are quite fascinating perspectives.

 

[jckstraw72]

I have read something similar. I have also heard that there was no rain before the Flood. If true, this shows that the Flood was a dramatic Earth-changing event. It had to to be, as pointed out earlier, life-spans dropped dramatically.

yeah i think several Fathers say there was no rain until the flood, IIRC

 

[ephesians4:2]

This is a response to another thread I started on the Christian History forum. I dont know if someone with this opinion has posted on this thread yet, its 11 pages I coulnt find one but I skimmed over it, but I believe the fallen angels and the nephilim genetically altered animals into dinos and other odd life forms in ancient mythology.

Enoch 7: 3-5
[3] And the women became pregnant, and they bare large giants, whose height was three thousand cubits. [4] The giants consumed all the work and toil of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. [5] And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drank the blood. -genetic manipulation

Jubilees 5: 1-2
[1] When the children of men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were bore to them, and the angels of God saw them on a certain jubilee, that they were beautiful, and they took themselves wives all of whom they chose, and they gave birth to their sons and they were giants. [2] Because of them lawlessness increased on the earth and all flesh corrupted its ways. Men and cattle and beasts and birds and everything that walked on the earth were all corrupted in their ways and their orders, and they began to devour each other. -there it is again

Jasher 4:18
[18]And their judges and rulers went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force from their husbands according to their choice, and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowels of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with another, in order therewith to provoke the Lord.
-even more clear in the meaning than the previous two

All of these events lead to the flood destroying all of the ungodly and corrupted flesh. Only Noah and the pure animals God sent to him to go into the ark for preservation were spared.

 

[Michael G]

The last 2 books you quoted, Ephesians, are not scripture.

 

[jckstraw72]

aaah that is very interesting though, ive definitely never heard that before.

 

[ephesians4:2]

Michael the Iconographer, they may not be scripture to you, but to many Christian sects across the globe they still are especially the Ethiopian Orthodox. Enoch and Jubilees are part of their canon and Jasher is referenced servaral times most notably in II Samuel 1:18 and Joshua 10;13, "behold it is written in the book of Jasher," "is not this written in the book of Jasher."
Jesus and many Jews in ancient times referred to these books as scripture, just because our modern day churches disregard them as false doesn't mean their opinions are correct. Then again its doesn't mean my opinion is correct either but I've had several dreams in the past year only supporting my opinion.

 

[Michael G]

Michael the Iconographer, they may not be scripture to you, but to many Christian sects across the globe they still are especially the Ethiopian Orthodox. Jesus and many Jews in ancient times referred to these books as scripture, just because our modern day churches disregard them as false doesn't mean their opinions are correct. Then again its doesn't mean my opinion is correct either but I've had several dreams in the past year only supporting my opinion.

The Eastern Orthodox Canon of Scripture is what stands in this forum.

And I won't even touch the dreams comment.

 

[jckstraw72]

its nevertheless useful for showing ideas that were out there in Judaism.

 

[Michael G]

its nevertheless useful for showing ideas that were out there in Judaism.

I will stick with the canonical books of scripture. I am an Orthodox Christian, not a Jew. If the Fathers of the Church did not find the books useful enough to include them in the canon of the OT, then I do not need to worry about them.

 

[MKJ]

its nevertheless useful for showing ideas that were out there in Judaism.

I will stick with the canonical books of scripture. I am an Orthodox Christian, not a Jew. If the Fathers of the Church did not find the books useful enough to include them in the canon of the OT, then I do not need to worry about them.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to treat them as Jewish commentary, with all that does (or does not) imply.

 

[Michael G]

Perhaps it would be appropriate to treat them as Jewish commentary, with all that does (or does not) imply.

Ok, that is fine. Jewish commentary. Jewish commentary and scripture are 2 totally different things.

 

[MKJ]

So I said I would give some quotes from Athanisius that pertain to the subject at hand, and here they are. Sorry I'm a bit tardy, I've been a bit tired in the evenings and I can't get focused enough when the kids are up.

I've been pretty broad in what I am including, just whatever seems like it might contribute. I'll try to make sure things are presented with enough context. I got this translation (with a lovely introduction by CS Lewis), here.

Grudging existence to none therefore, He made all things out of nothing through His own Word, our Lord Jesus Christ and of all these His earthly creatures He reserved especial mercy for the race of men. Upon them, therefore, upon men who, as animals, were essentially impermanent, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked—namely the impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonable being of the very Word Himself, so that, reflecting Him and themselves becoming reasonable and expressing the Mind of God even as He does, though in limited degree they might continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise.

(Chapter1)

If they guarded the grace and retained the loveliness of their original innocence, then the life of paradise should be theirs, without sorrow, pain or care, and after it the assurance of immortality in heaven. But if they went astray and became vile, throwing away their birthright of beauty, then they would come under the natural law of death and live no longer in paradise, but, dying outside of it, continue in death and in corruption.

(Chapter 1)

By nature, of course, man is mortal, since he was made from nothing; but he bears also the Likeness of Him Who is, and if he preserves that Likeness through constant contemplation, then his nature is deprived of its power and he remains incorrupt.

(Chapter 1)

Was He to keep silence before so great a wrong and let men go on being thus deceived and kept in ignorance of Himself? If so, what was the use of having made them in His own Image originally? It would surely have been better for them always to have been brutes, rather than to revert to that condition when once they had shared the nature of the Word. Again, things being as they were, what was the use of their ever having had the knowledge of God? Surely it would have been better for God never to have bestowed it, than that men should subsequently be found unworthy to receive it.

(Chapter 2)

We have seen that to change the corruptible to incorruption was proper to none other than the Savior Himself, Who in the beginning made all things out of nothing; that only the Image of the Father could re-create the likeness of the Image in men, that none save our Lord Jesus Christ could give to mortals immortality, and that only the Word Who orders all things and is alone the Father's true and sole-begotten Son could teach men about Him and abolish the worship of idols

(Chapter 4)

The death of men under ordinary circumstances is the result of their natural weakness. They are essentially impermanent, so after a time they fall ill and when worn out they die.

(Chapter 4)

I haven't got past this yet. I think he is fairly clear: nothing in creation is immortal or incorruptible according to its own nature; man is given these characteristics by being made, in a special way, in God's image.

Since animals, plants, and other material things are not made in God's image, it does not seem to follow that incorruptability or immortality could belong to them.

 

[jckstraw72]

well i agree that your interpretation is easy to get out of St. Athanasius, but based on the quotes you have given i dont think he is necessarily teaching that animals have always been mortal. just as man is mortal by nature but yet was not infected with death from the beginning, the same can be true of animals. true, he connects the possibility for incorruption in man to the image of God, which the animals do not have, but i don't think that what he says excludes the interpretation that the rest of creation is incorrupt by virtue of its connection to the fate of man, as so many other Fathers teach, as creation is seen as man's kingdom and thus connected to his fate. i can only assume that St. Athanasius is familiar with St. Paul's teaching that the creation was subject to futility through man, and creation will be restored through man, so i would think he would have to seen some kind of change in creation due to man's sin, but he doesnt address that in the quotes you provided, so its hard to say what he saw as the change. and i know he at some point references the Wisdom of Solomon 1-2 which tells us that God does not desire the death of anything living, not just man. without further evidence, i can only assume that he teaches in harmony with Saints such as John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, etc.

 

[MKJ]

well i agree that your interpretation is easy to get out of St. Athanasius, but based on the quotes you have given i dont think he is necessarily teaching that animals have always been mortal. just as man is mortal by nature but yet was not infected with death from the beginning, the same can be true of animals. true, he connects the possibility for incorruption in man to the image of God, which the animals do not have, but i don't think that what he says excludes the interpretation that the rest of creation is incorrupt by virtue of its connection to the fate of man, as so many other Fathers teach, as creation is seen as man's kingdom and thus connected to his fate. i can only assume that St. Athanasius is familiar with St. Paul's teaching that the creation was subject to futility through man, and creation will be restored through man, so i would think he would have to seen some kind of change in creation due to man's sin, but he doesnt address that in the quotes you provided, so its hard to say what he saw as the change. and i know he at some point references the Wisdom of Solomon 1-2 which tells us that God does not desire the death of anything living, not just man. without further evidence, i can only assume that he teaches in harmony with Saints such as John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, etc.

It could be. But I'm not sure why you would assume that they all agree.

In any case, I don't personally think that the garden and fall were what you would normally call an historical event, so it's ultimatly a moot point from my perspective

 

[jckstraw72]

they might disagree, but i begin by assuming they are in harmony, cause thats just how the Church typically works - with the mind of Christ/the Church being displayed through the Fathers, icons, hymns, Councils, etc

 

[Michael G]

My spiritual father is one of the most respected priests in the Diocese of the Midwest. He has been a priest for close to 50 years and is loved by every priest who knows him. When I talked to him today about this thread he made it crystal clear to me there is nothing in Orthodox teaching that requires me to believe the world was created in 6 twenty-four hour time periods. He suggested I leave it to faith and worry about things that are much more important to my life.

 

[jckstraw72]

true, there are more important things than how long the days were, but this thread is about animal death specifically. and although it may not be important for you and your spiritual path, that doesnt mean its not important for anyone.

 

[Michael G]

true, there are more important things than how long the days were, but this thread is about animal death specifically. and although it may not be important for you and your spiritual path, that doesnt mean its not important for anyone.

My point is this: Orthodoxy is not Roman Catholicism. The Roman Catholic Church spells out everything with the precision of the best attorney. The Orthodox Church spells very few things out in crystal clear dogma. What you are telling us is your opinion. You will find among the fathers there are often varying opinions. Sometimes there is a majority and a minority opinion. But in the end they are just opinions and holding one or the other makes you neither more or less Orthodox.

 

[jckstraw72]

and conversely, i think ppl are far too quick to relegate a teaching to the realm of theologumena when there is no valid reason from within the Church to do so. According to St. Theophan the Recluse, the Tradition of the Church is a standard by which we can judge scientific ideas, not vice versa. i think if some ppl had their way, the Church would actually teach next-to-nothing (thats not a shot at anyone on here, im thinking more of OC.net and ppl ive talked to in person).

 

[jckstraw72]

You will find among the fathers there are often varying opinions. Sometimes there is a majority and a minority opinion. But in the end they are just opinions and holding one or the other makes you neither more or less Orthodox.

ok, so then a practical question we need to ask is: how do we know when the "opinions" stop and something is an actual teaching of the Church?

i just asked Bp. Michael today if God does not desire the death of humans only, or of all creation, and he said of all creation - that nothing is created to die. Dr. Harry Boosalis and Dr. Christopher Veniamin have taught the same thing, and Fr. Sergius, the abbot of St. Tikhon's Monastery has told me the same thing. Are they all clinging to opinions, or has, perhaps, the Church actually expressed her mind on this issue?